We are a nation of immigrants, but does that mean that we should have wide open borders? At the height of European migration, when France gave us the Statue of Liberty, did we not have and use Ellis Island where many were in fact sent back? When they came they didn’t get anything from the govt, even as some were able to homestead, but illegal immigrants get a wealth of aid all while calling America racist. Does the fact that my ancestors came here as early as 500 years ago mean that the US should always have an open door, regardless of the struggles the American people face? Our immigration policies, the same which allow terrorists citizenship and reward criminal activity while denying a home schooling Christian family from Germany the chance to stay are insane, and if they show racism, ask yourself why the Romeike family face deportation while Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is a US citizen, and his brother was allowed to remain even after we were told of his terrorist ties.
I cast my first vote for Ronald Reagan and have voted Republican in every Presidential election except 1996, when I voted for and strongly supported Harry Browne, and in 2008. Fact is in ’08 I simply could not stomach the idea of John McCain on any level. That does not mean I voted for Barack Obama either. For the first time I did not vote for President. Some may argue that a vote taken from McCain was a vote for Obama, but I was sick and tired, as many of you are now, of the GOP putting forth RINOs and forcing us to vote for them. Frankly I have reached the point where I no longer wish to choose the scenic route to socialism and the death of the Republic. I suspect that many out there feel the same way.
I strongly support Ron Paul, and his campaign has revealed how far the establishment will go to shut out someone who reflects the values that made this nation great. In seeing the numbers of people who Ron Paul has reached, I have tremendous hope that our future is not as decided as some may wish. America still has a fight in her, and Americans are not ready to give up our inheritance.
The reasons why I am not now a registered Libertarian, even as I lean Libertarian, is based on a few issues. The first being the issue of illegal aliens. All parties have ignored this issue for various reasons, but I do believe strongly that our nation holds a basic duty to secure our borders and control who can come in and be a citizen. The negligence of our government to do that has created a huge mess that hurts illegals and Americans alike.
The Statue of Liberty is very cool, but that poem was never supposed to be public policy. It is not a Constitutional amendment. We never voted on it, and in fact when we have voted it has been clear; NO OPEN BORDERS. If you are here because you wish to be an American, by all means come, but if you wish to transform this nation, to impose your language, customs, or religion on us, go home. This is not your home. We need to see that our own are taken care of first before we extend charity and open arms to others. We do not allow 1.5 million illegals a year to flood our nation when so many Americans are out of work. They should not come if they will never ascribe to American values or identity. Out of many we are one people, and if we are not, our destruction is assured.
The LP position is as follows:
We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.
As for free trade, I do not believe in unilateral free trade. We have numbers and resources, and these should be utilized to create fair trade. If a nation will not extend free trade with us, there is no reason we should allow them into our markets. China, a communist tyranny that uses slave labor, often Christians imprisoned for their faith, a regime that does not extend free trade to the U.S., should not be producing our products or selling in our marketplace. Therein is another reason I am not a big L libertarian.
The LP policy on abortion is as follows:
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
I believe abortion is a grave sin, but that ultimately the issue should be left to the states to decide. That is how our Republic was set up, and it works very well. Of course government should have a say in the matter, but the choice should be determined locally, like most issues, not federally. The same for homosexual marriage and other issues. The granting of these rights by a state should not ever be used to deny anyone their First Amendment right by forcing people of faith to support or provide these things. That was the real issue with the “War Against Women” and Sandra Fluke, it is an attempt to force people of faith to provide birth control and abortifacients to those who come to them. Churches are threatened with law suits for not allowing gay marriage. Who is cramming their views down everyone’s throats?
In a contest between God and man, God wins.
I’m not looking to write a book on the issue, but isn’t it time that there was someone who reflects the views of most Americans? Isn’t it time to set the Republicrat – Demican lie aside and recognize that neither side is working in our best interests? Liberals make up their own script, but there are some real issues. In those issues why would they trust the government or even want the government to address those things? Do they really believe that politicians (Obama included) paid for by the so called 1% are some how going to work for the people? Big business and big government are two sides of the same coin. Limit the power of the government and you directly limit the power of the elites over the masses.
The solution is with the people, not government. The solution is in restoring the Republic, and liberty to the people, in securing our future, and not selling out our grandchildren to pay for Bill Ayers vision of America.
What party stands for that?
- Random Thoughts on the GOP (cowboypress.wordpress.com)
- Tax Day TEA Party Rally: Competing Currencies Rant (yeyoungeconomist.wordpress.com)
I find it strange that a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 would lead to the establishment clause, or the Separation of Church and State. It was not an official document, it was a letter. Much like the poem on the Statue of Liberty, somehow this became secular dogma.
Jefferson believed that our nation, unlike almost every other nation on earth, should not have an official church. His intention was to assure the Baptists that as the Constitution states, they have freedom OF religion. The government should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
To state that somehow Jefferson believed that faith was to be divorced from the person, or that public appeals to God were to be banished, is a gross misrepresentation. He used an appeal to our common faith in the Declaration of Independence, a document which, unlike his letter, is a foundational document agreed upon by the Continental Congress.
The battle over the concept of Freedom OF Religion vs. Freedom FROM Religion rages today. Does faith hold a place in public life? If faith is real, it is part of who they are on every level.
A person can separate their civic duties from their religious convictions. Any assumption otherwise, especially as people of faith and various denominations have demonstrated their civic convictions and abilities, reflects a tremendous bigotry.
It is these same bigots that scream the loudest about the separation of Church and State, who fight to remove God and faith from all public display. They are the same who applaud loudest when Obama moved to directly attack the faith of Roman Catholics with the weight of Federal mandate. The hypocrisy is glaringly clear.
Rick Santorum or any political figure can’t speak to his fellow believers on matters of a common faith without raising a red flag. He can’t hold personal religious convictions without having his faith ridiculed and being declared unfit, not because of his political stances, but because of his faith.
However, Obama can sit in a church with a black Father Flannery and misquote Jesus’ teachings on gifts to make a case for taxes, and there is no issue. He can directly attack fundamental beliefs of the largest religious denomination in the world, clearly violating the First Amendment and the separation of Church and State.
Our government bends over backward to apologize to Muslims, the same who are now killing our soldiers, but attacking the faith of most Americans is a non-issue. We can’t have the Ten Commandments displayed, or prayer in school, but we will consider Sharia Law, or allow Muslim prayer areas in public schools and universities.
Our media thinks twice before ridiculing Islam but regularly mocks Christianity.
83% of Americans identify themselves as Christian, but they are to have no rights and be pushed out of the public arena? Their psychology is to be questioned or their loyalty to our nation doubted.
We are told we are in the post-Christian era, that we are not a Christian nation.
I wonder what letter Jefferson would say today. I’m sure this was not his intent.